You are on page 1of 16

57

Primary submission: 13.08.2013 | Final acceptance: 02.09.2013

Evaluation of Factors Influencing Job


Satisfaction
Barbara A. Sypniewska1

ABSTRACT The term “job satisfaction” is derived from the humanities, psychology and sociology. In the field of
psychology, it is a state where an employee has an emotional perception of his situation and reacts
with feelings of pleasure or pain. In sociology, it is considered a variable in different categories re-
lated to how each employee evaluates and thinks about his work. Job satisfaction is closely related
to the performance and quality of work performed by an employee and, consequently, translates
into the success of an organization, because a satisfied employee builds and participates in the suc-
cess of any organization. This article presents the results of the research conducted by the author in
2012 on a sample of 215 people. Respondents represented different organizations. The aim of the
study was to identify and assess the significance of individual factors influencing satisfaction and
dissatisfaction with work and demonstrate their impact on the overall assessment of job satisfac-
tion. The study showed that between the weight attributed to individual factors and overall job
satisfaction there are many statistically significant correlations referring mainly to selected on the
basis of analysis respondents’ groups. The study confirms the raised thesis concerning the validity of
research in the factors affecting the general feeling of satisfaction by the employees.

KEY WORDS: job satisfaction; job contentment

JEL Classification: M54

1
Wyższa Szkoła Finansów i Zarządzania w Warszawie, Poland

Introduction is there a desire to implement a need on a higher level


The concept of satisfaction originated from the hu- (Hoffman, 2003, p. 156).
manistic school of thought, one of the branches of psy- In the literature of subject, satisfaction is identified
chology. The precursor and a supporter of the school as an employee’s positive attitude towards the compa-
was A. Maslow, who believed that people seek to satisfy ny, co-workers and, finally, the job. The concept of sat-
their needs in a  proper hierarchical order. From the isfaction refers to the sphere of expectations in relation
lowest level and moving upward, he ranks first physio- to the company and is, therefore, a  purely subjective
logical needs, then safety, belonging, appreciation and notion, but translates into quality of work (Mrzygłód,
self-realization. According to Maslow, only after feel- 2004, pp. 183-196).
ing satisfaction in meeting the needs of a lower level The term “job satisfaction” is commonly used in
everyday language and many authors interchangeably
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: use the term “job satisfaction” with “job contentment”.
Barbara A. Sypniewska, Wyższa Szkoła Finansów i Zarządzania In the psychological literature we can find the
w Warszawie, 55 Pawia Str. , Warsaw 01-030, Poland. statement that “contentment is the emotional reac-
E-mail: agata.sypni@op.pl tion of pleasure or pain, experienced in connection

www.ce.vizja.pl Vizja Press&IT

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2435040


58 Vol.8 Issue 1 2014 57-72 Barbara A. Sypniewska

with performing specific tasks, functions and roles” partial factors in the organization of motivation sys-
(Bańka, 2002, pp. 321-350). Job contentment may tems. Thus, the overall job contentment and job satis-
thus be regarded as the emotional reaction to the situ- faction of an employee consists of the evaluation of all
ation at work (Ariani, 2012, pp. 46-56). In sociology, the individual factors of incentive schemes.
we consider this variable in categories related to how One of the dominant theories of motivation is the
each employee assesses his work and what he thinks two-factor theory by Frederick Herzberg (Zalewska,
about it. These categories are dealt with in the same 2003). Thanks to ongoing research, he demonstrated
way regardless of whether we are operating with the the existence of two groups of factors that influence
term “job satisfaction” or “job contentment”. Gener- satisfaction or dissatisfaction with work. The first
ally, the definition of job satisfaction includes factors group was called the external factors (hygiene fac-
that can be grouped into four areas: economic aspects tors) and includes supervisors, working conditions,
of work, interpersonal relationships, activities and wages and safety. The other group of factors was
tasks, and working conditions (Herzberg, 1965, pp. named the internal factors (motivators). They are
364-376, Locke et al., 1964, pp. 313-319; Zalewska, so-called higher needs: recognition by others, work
2001, pp. 197-218). performance, accountability and development. Ac-
Economic aspects of work apply to all quantifiable cording to Herzberg, while the positive assessment of
and financial aspects the employee may obtain for his the first group of factors does not increase job sat-
work but also includes penalties and the possibility of isfaction, and the lack of them is felt demotivating.
development and advancement. These aspects are part The other group of factors contribute to the increase
of the motivation system of the organization. in job satisfaction (Armstrong, 2000; Griffin, 1998;
Interpersonal relationships at the workplace are Stride, Wall & Catley, 2007). Herzberg examined the
extremely important for employees. This thesis is components of job satisfaction and concluded that
confirmed by numerous studies concerning satisfac- the use of different programs enriches the content of
tion and job contentment. In this article we will also work, thus making work more attractive and increas-
attempt to prove the above thesis. Interpersonal re- ing job satisfaction. Proponents of this method claim
lationships are mainly about an employee’s quality of that they can eliminate the boredom and monotony
relationships with supervisors and other employees, of work, but there is no certainty that in this way will
his workplace’s general atmosphere, his means of com- job contentment increase. The evidence which con-
munication, whether he can give and receive feedback firmed that it was the research conducted by, among
and recognition from his superiors. others, Feina (1970).
Activities and tasks can be evaluated on a scale that Subsequent studies have verified the theory adopted
ranges from monotonous and repetitive to varied and by Herzberg. It turns out that the weightage of at-
interesting. However, the assessment of activities and tributed factors influencing job contentment changes
tasks is a subjective process that is affected by various depending on the job or position held. For example,
factors because the employee has to evaluate the exces- blue-collar workers appreciate more hygiene factors
siveness or deficiency of his tasks, his time pressure, than motivators as hygiene factors shape their sense of
the level of independence and responsibility for the job satisfaction more than motivators do. In contrast,
results of his work that he bears, his independence in white-collar workers cite motivators as sources of job
decision making as well as the content of his work. satisfaction (Harris & Locke, 1974, pp. 369-370).
Working conditions concern aspects of the work en- M. Armstrong mentions, among the basic con-
vironment that should contribute to the conduciveness ditions for feeling job satisfaction, the following
and safety felt by employees at the workplace. They elements: a  relatively high salary, opportunity for
include, among others, workplace equipment, tools, promotion, supervisors, equitable wage system, the in-
computers, cars, telephones and the aspects that are tegration of co-workers and tasks (Armstrong, 2005, p
regulated by health and safety regulations. 220). However, because these individual expectations
All of these factors are assessed by an employee in and needs that Armstrong mentions combined with
terms of his satisfaction or dissatisfaction. They are the ability to satisfy them at work determine the degree

CONTEMPORARY ECONOMICS DOI: 10.5709/ce.1897-9254.131

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2435040


Evaluation of Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction 59

of satisfaction that is perceived, the feeling of satisfac- interpersonal relationships, activities and tasks, and
tion is, as was already stated, marked by subjectivism. working conditions (Herzberg, 1965, pp. 134-143; Za-
A. Pocztowski believes that the level of job satis- lewska, 2001, pp. 197-218). There are various studies
faction experienced by an employee is dependent on concerning the analysis of factors influencing job sat-
the amount of wages, advancement opportunities, isfaction. These studies began to attach importance to
management style, content of work, interpersonal the inner traits of personality or cognitive judgments
relations, working conditions, work organization, as factors responsible for the occurrence or nonoccur-
management and corporate reputation (Pocztowski, rence of job satisfaction (Furnham, 2008; Zalewska,
2003, p 450). In turn, P. Makin, G. Cooper and Ch. 2003). There are also studies on internal and external
Cox (2000, pp. 82-83) claim that job satisfaction is factors affecting employee and job satisfaction. One
an emotional mental state in the perception of posi- of the internal factors taken into account is emotional
tive and pleasant which proceeds with the evalua- intelligence (Jorfi, Fauzy Bin Yacco & Md Shah, 2012,
tion of their own work or experience. They mention, pp. 590-597). Job satisfaction is influenced by groups
among others, factors that influence the feeling of job of factors associated with broadly understood internal
satisfaction as: interesting work, well-paid jobs, the work environments and worker characteristics. Sub-
possibility of advancement, good superiors and good ject and situational factors should therefore be consid-
relationships with co-workers. ered together as factors that determine the perceived
It should be emphasized that the significant in- level of job satisfaction.
fluence on the level of satisfaction is, undoubtedly, There are studies stressing the importance of rela-
a  sense of justice. Justice is felt by workers in some tionships and the relations of the type of occupation
degree for all of the factors that make up job content- (Argyle, 2004). There is repeated emphasis on the im-
ment. The employee evaluates justice or rightness portance of the subjective perception of the work per-
bonuses and if the result is positive, achieves satisfac- formed for the organization (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003,
tion. According to the theory of justice, motivation in pp.. 309-327).
employees is the result of the satisfaction with what Also important is the aspect binding job satisfac-
workers receives in exchange for their contributions. tion, productivity and quality of work. There are two
If they are treated fair, their motivation increases; if areas where a high level of job satisfaction significant-
not, their motivation decreases. ly improves the quality of work. Positive emotions (in
According to M. Armstrong, job satisfaction can be the case of satisfied employees) foster creative think-
developed by focusing on the internal factors of mo- ing (Brief & Weiss, 2002, pp. 279-307). Undecided
tivation: responsibility, achievement and recognition. people may take excessive risks and act risky (Isen,
The objective of managers should therefore be figur- 2005, pp. 527-549).
ing out the different ways of delegating responsibility In addition, important aspects influencing job
to give their employees the space and freedom to use satisfaction are contacts, meetings and relationships
their skills and abilities (Armstrong, 2004, p 132). with co-workers or superiors (Rogelberg et al., 2010,
Job satisfaction can be seen as a multidimensional pp. 149-172).
attitude. It consists, according to J. Mrzygłód, of the What could be the benefits of having happy and
attitude of the employee to salary, promotion, co- satisfied employees? Generally, satisfied people build
workers, supervisor or work itself (Mrzygłód, 2004, positive relationships based on cooperation and ef-
pp. 183-196). fective teamwork with others, thus increasing com-
The employee satisfaction survey is an element that munication and ensuring proper communication and
supports the development and correction of the mo- effective conflict mitigation (Isen, 2005, pp. 527-549).
tivation systems in an organization (Bojewska, 2006, Satisfied employees mean reduced absenteeism, a high
pp. 481-495). level of commitment to work, loyalty and permanence
Contemporary studies on measuring the level of of employment, improved health and a lack of the de-
job satisfaction are based on the analysis of the previ- sire to avoid work, simulated malaise and excuses to be
ously mentioned four areas: economic aspects of work, absence from work. (Argyle, 2004). A high level of job

www.ce.vizja.pl Vizja Press&IT


60 Vol.8 Issue 1 2014 57-72 Barbara A. Sypniewska

Table 1. Distribution of frequency - the age the respondents

Sex
women men total
The age of the respondents n % n % n %
20-29 years old 116 75.8 46 74.2 162 75.3
30-39 years old 23 15.0 8 12.9 31 14.4
40-49 years old 9 5.9 5 8.1 14 6.5
50-60 years old 5 3.3 3 4.8 8 3.7
total 153 100 62 100 215 100
Notes: n - number of persons; % - the percentage of the group

Table 2. The frequency distribution - position held by the respondents

Position n %
managerial 27 12.6
professional 67 31.2
manual worker 34 15.8
administrative worker 63 29.3
other 22 10.2
no data 2 0.9
total 215 100
Notes: n - number of persons; % - percentage of the sample size

Table 3. Distribution of frequency - the period of employment in the company

The period of employment in the company n %


less than a year 57 26.5
1-2 years 70 32.6
3-5 years 50 23.3
5-10 years 17 7.9
Over 10 years 20 9.3
no data 1 0.5
In total 215 100
Notes: n - number of persons; % - percentage of the sample size

satisfaction increases an employee’s commitment to in staying with an organization than with leaving
​​ it
work and frees him from stress and burnout (Maslach, (Jachnis, 2008). A  disgruntled employee often thinks
2000, pp. 13-31; Ogińska-Bulik, 2006; Sarmiento, Las- about changing his job; however, if he decides to stay,
chinger & Iwasiw, 2004, pp. 134-143; Sęk, 2000, pp. his motivation is low and causes performance degrada-
149-167), while the lack of job satisfaction results in tion not only in his own work but also in the overall
increased absenteeism (Jachnis, 2008). A satisfied em- performance of the organization (Wang, Yang & Wang,
ployee is more loyal, because he sees more benefits 2012, pp. 557-573).

CONTEMPORARY ECONOMICS DOI: 10.5709/ce.1897-9254.131


Evaluation of Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction 61

Table 4. Distribution of frequency - a form of employment in the company

A form of employment in the company n %


contract of indefinite duration 103 47.9
contract of employment for a specified amount of time 57 26.5
contract of mandate 37 17.2
contract for specific work 4 1.9
another form 12 5.6
no data 2 0.9
total 215 100
Notes: n - number of persons; % - percentage of the sample size

The objective of many studies is to identify the ini- Do the individual component factors of job satisfac-
tial level of satisfaction, identify the determinants of tion affect different groups of workers in the same way?
satisfaction and define a  company’s activities which How are the individual factors which contribute to
undoubtedly result in increasing the sense and feeling job satisfaction evaluated by employees who differ in
of satisfaction and job contentment of its employees. terms of age, sex, length of service, form of employ-
ment and position held?
Methodology of research
The study was conducted during the months of June The results of research
and July 2012. The study involved 215 respondents (153 This section presents the results of the analyses that
women and 62 men) who were matched in a  random were conducted to verify this study’s hypotheses. This
manner. The study was conducted specifically for the study involved 215 respondents. The majority of the
purpose of assessing the factors that affect job satisfaction respondents (over 75%) are aged 20-29 and in this
and a questionnaire was designed to achieve this goal. age group, 116 of the respondents were women and
The aim of the study was to first identify and assess 46 were men. Significantly fewer people, the remain-
the significance of individual factors that influence ing 25% of respondents, were in the group aged 30-60.
satisfaction and dissatisfaction with work and then Among the 215 respondents, women numbered 153
demonstrate their impact on the overall assessment while there were 62 men. Table 1 shows frequency dis-
of job satisfaction. tribution for the age of the respondents.
The respondents were asked about the positions
The following basic hypothesis has been drawn out: they held. They could choose between 4 options:
The individual factors in job satisfaction have an effect managerial position, professional, manual worker
on the perception of an employee’s overall job contentment. and administrative worker. Most of the respondents
In addition, a number of detailed hypotheses have were people who worked as specialists (67 people)
been drawn out: and administrative workers (63 people). Manual
An overall assessment of the job satisfaction of em- workers numbered 34 and 27 respondents held
ployees consists of the evaluation of individual factors managerial positions. Two people did not respond
comprising it. to this question, while only 22 respondents indi-
The individual components of job satisfaction are cated that they held positions other than those men-
assessed differently by employees depending on their tioned earlier but without specifying what positions
age, gender, length of service, position held and form they held. Table 2 shows the frequency distribution
of employment. for the positions held by the respondents.
The research issues are as follows: Most of the respondents have worked in their com-
What factors influence the job satisfaction of em- panies for at most two years. 57 people have worked
ployees? for less than a year at the company and for a period of

www.ce.vizja.pl Vizja Press&IT


62 Vol.8 Issue 1 2014 57-72 Barbara A. Sypniewska

Table 5. Descriptive statistics for the factors affecting job contentment

Factor M SD min max


Stability of employment 3.34 0.75 1 4
Communication with management 3.09 0.74 1 4
Communication between employees and other groups 3.06 0.78 1 4
possibility of promotion 3.03 0.84 1 4
Possibility of development 2.98 0.83 1 4
Content of work 2.92 0.78 1 4
Recognition of superiors 3.08 0.78 1 4
Good relationship with superiors 3.13 0.73 1 4
Independence in decision-making 3.00 0.79 1 4
Company culture 2.90 0.81 1 4
Safety at work 3.00 0.74 1 4
Good relationships with coworkers 3.34 0.62 1 4
Atmosphere at work 3.39 0.67 1 4
Notes: M - the average rank, SD - standard deviation, min - minimum value, max - the maximum value

1 to 2 years, there were 70 people. Meanwhile, the least For the respondents, the most important factor in-
number of people (17) have worked at the company fluencing job satisfaction was the atmosphere at work,
for a  5 to 10 years period and there were 20 respon- while the least important factor was the culture of the
dents who have worked at the company for more than company.
10 years. Table 3 shows the frequency distribution for Figure 1 shows the above factors sorted from most
the period of employment of the respondents in the to least important.
company to which answers to questions in the survey For the respondents the two equally most im-
were addressed. portant factors influencing job satisfaction, after the
Most of the respondents worked under a contract of atmosphere at work, are: stability of employment
indefinite duration - 103 people, representing 47.9% of all and good relations with co-workers. Good relations
respondents, while 57 (26.5%) respondents were hired for with superiors and communication with manage-
a specified amount of time. 41 people (19% of all respon- ment are the fourth and fifth most important fac-
dents) worked on the basis of either a mandatory contract tors. Content of work and the possibility of devel-
or contract work. Table 4 shows the frequency distribu- opment are the second and third least important
tion for the form of employment of the respondents in the factors for respondents.
company to which the answers were given.
Cluster analysis
Factors that influence job In order to look accurately at the individual factors
satisfaction. influencing job contentment, ratings ofthese factors
The respondents were asked about the factors were subjected to cluster analysis usingthe k-average
that influence job satisfaction. The subjects had to method. Table 6 shows standardized rating values in
select which of the 13 factors influence their “great separate clusters, together with the test of statistical
satisfaction”, “satisfaction”, “low satisfaction” or are significance of differences.
“irrelevant”. Table 5 shows factors that, according to Significant differences were noticed between groups
the respondents, had an impact on their job content- in all analyzed factors.
ment, along with descriptive statistics to estimate the There are four distinct clusters. The final cluster cen-
significance of these factors. ters are presented in Figure 2.

CONTEMPORARY ECONOMICS DOI: 10.5709/ce.1897-9254.131


Evaluation of Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction 63

2,6 2,8 3 3,2 3,4 3,6

Atmosphere at work

Stability of employment

Good relationships with coworkers

Good relationships with superiors

Communication with management

Recognition of superiors

Communication between employees and others

Possibility of promotion

Independence in decision‐making

Safety at work

Possibility of development

Content of work

Company culture

Figure 1. Average values of the importance of factors influencing job contentment


 

Table 6. Final cluster centers along with the test of statistical significance
Cluster
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4
variable n=18 n=45 n=72 n=59 F df p
Stability M -0.67 -0.39 0.12 0.41
10.08*** 3.190 0.001
of employment SD 1.53 1.06 0.77 0.73
Communication M -1.32 -0.24 0.67 -0.12
40.70*** 3.190 0.001
with management SD 0.92 0.75 0.67 0.75
Communication between M -1.35 0.13 0.60 -0.29
35.52*** 3.190 0.001
employees and others SD 0.88 0.82 0.68 0.83
Possibility M -0.90 -0.62 0.46 0.36
27.67*** 3.190 0.001
of promotion SD 0.89 0.90 0.79 0.72
Possibility M -0.85 -0.54 0.33 0.29
16.07*** 3.190 0.001
of development SD 0.91 1.05 0.86 0.81
Content M -1.04 -0.53 0.19 0.49
21.79*** 3.190 0.001
of work SD 0.87 0.93 0.95 0.68
Recognition M -0.74 -0.82 0.56 0.25
33.56*** 3.190 0.001
of superiors SD 1.01 0.94 0.69 0.79
Good relationship M -0.85 -0.66 0.62 0.13
31.37*** 3.190 0.001
with superiors SD 1.07 0.88 0.68 0.80
Independence M -0.78 -0.23 0.26 0.16
7.22*** 3.190 0.001
in decision-making SD 0.88 1.15 0.84 0.92
Company M -1.32 -0.54 0.44 0.22
28.39*** 3.190 0.001
culture SD 0.87 0.97 0.83 0.77
Safety M -1.05 -0.72 0.58 0.11
33.61*** 3.190 0.001
at work SD 0.99 0.89 0.71 0.84
Good relationship M -1.53 -0.09 0.81 -0.47
70.73*** 3.190 0.001
with coworkers SD 1.12 0.73 0.58 0.63
Atmosphere M -1.90 -0.28 0.79 -0.10
91.85*** 3.190 0.001
at work SD 0,70 0,75 0,42 0,76
Notes: M - average value,SD - standard deviation, F - test statistic, df - degrees of freedom, p - statistical significance

www.ce.vizja.pl Vizja Press&IT


64 Vol.8 Issue 1 2014 57-72 Barbara A. Sypniewska

Figure 2: The final cluster centers.

focusing nr 1 nr 2 nr 3 nr 4


1

0,5

‐0,5

‐1

‐1,5

‐2

‐2,5

Figure 2. The final cluster centers

In the first cluster / group (n = 18), respondents intended to describe the characteristics of the respon-
evaluated individual factors as have little effect on dents in the individual clusters, i.e., the description of:
their job contentment. - sex, age, period of employment in the company,
The second cluster / group of the respondents (n - held positions: managerial, professional, physical
= 45) comprised of people who assessed that most of or administrative, and
the factors, with the exceptions of communication - on what basis they are employed in a  company:
between the employees and other groups, good rela- agreement on fixed-term or indefinite contract or
tionships with colleagues and working atmosphere, work order.
have little impact on their job contentment. Based on test 2, there was a  statistically significant
The third cluster / group of the respondents (n = correlation between belonging to one of four separate
70) were formed by people who showed that all of clusters and the sex of the respondents, 2 (3) = 16.58, p
the analyzed factors had a strong influence on their <0.01. Table 7 presents the frequency distribution for
level of job contentment. The most important fac- the sex of the respondents from each cluster.cc
tors were communication with management, the Among the respondents from cluster No. 1, No.
recognition of superiors, good relations with supe- 3 and No. 4, there were more women than men. In
riors, good relationships with colleagues and work- the group of people from cluster No. 2, the number of
ing atmosphere. women and men were similar.
The fourth cluster / group of the respondents (n = There was also a  statistically significant relation-
59) were people who evaluated that the most impor- ship between belonging to one of four separate clus-
tant factors for job contentment were job stability, ters and the age of the respondents, 2 (9) = 25.81, p
opportunity for promotion, development opportu- <0.01. Table 8 shows the frequency distribution for the
nities and work content. age of the respondents from each cluster.c
In addition, each cluster group was analyzed in Among those tested, in all four clusters most respon-
terms of gender, age, position held, period of employ- dents were aged 20-29 with cluster No. 1 having the small-
ment and form of employment. This procedure was est percentage (50%) of respondents in this age group.

CONTEMPORARY ECONOMICS DOI: 10.5709/ce.1897-9254.131


Evaluation of Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction 65

Table 7. Characteristics of separate clusters - sex of the respondents

Cluster
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4
Sex n % n % n % n %
women 12 66.7 22 48.9 60 83.3 44 74.6
men 6 33.3 23 51.1 12 16.7 15 25.4
In total 18 100.0 45 100.0 72 100.0 59 100.0
Notes: n - Number of persons; % - the percentage of the group

Table 8. Characteristics of separate clusters - the age of the respondents

Cluster
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4
Age n % n % n % n %
20-29 years old 9 50.0 36 80.0 64 88.9 44 74.6
30-39 years old 3 16.7 6 13.3 7 9.7 11 18.6
40-49 years old 4 22.2 2 4.4 1 1.4 3 5.1
50-60 years old 2 11.1 1 2.2 0 0.0 1 1.7
In total 18 100.0 45 100.0 72 100.0 59 100.0
Notes: n - number of persons; % - the percentage of the group

Table 9. Characteristics of separate clusters - position

Cluster
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4
Position n % n % n % n %
managerial 1 5.9 5 12.8 12 19.0 9 16.1
professional 2 11.8 12 30.8 23 36.5 25 44.6
manual worker 8 47.1 11 28.2 5 7.9 6 10.7
administrative worker 6 35.3 11 28.2 23 36.5 16 28.6
In total 17 100.0 39 100.0 63 100.0 56 100.0
Notes: n - number of persons; % - the percentage of the group

A  significant relationship was observed between people working in specialist positions. In cluster No. 3
belonging to one of four separate clusters and work and cluster No. 4, most people worked in professional
position, 2 (9) = 22.98, p <0.01. Table 9 presents the and administrative positions.
frequency distribution of the respondents to their posi- There is a  statistically significant relationship be-
tions according to their particular clusters.c tween belonging to one of the four separate clusters
Among the people from cluster No. 1, most were and a respondent’s period of employment, 2 (12) =
manual workers. In the group of people from the clus- 22.90, p <0.05. Table 10 shows the frequency distribu-
ter No. 2, there were approximately the same amount tion for the period of employment of the respondents
of blue-collar workers, administrative workers and according to their particular clusters.c

www.ce.vizja.pl Vizja Press&IT


66 Vol.8 Issue 1 2014 57-72 Barbara A. Sypniewska

Table 10. Characteristics of separate clusters - the period of employment

Cluster
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4
Employment n % n % n % n %
less than a year 1 5.6 11 24.4 26 36.1 17 28.8
1-2 years 6 33.3 15 33.3 25 34.7 19 32.2
3-5 years 3 16.7 11 24.4 16 22.2 16 27.1
5-10 years 5 27.8 3 6.7 3 4.2 3 5.1
Over 10 years 3 16.7 5 11.1 2 2.8 4 6.8
In total 18 100.0 45 100.0 72 100.0 59 100.0
Notes: n - number of persons; % - the percentage of the group

Table 11. Characteristics of separate clusters - a form of employment

Cluster
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4
Employment n % n % n % n %
contract for indefinite duration 14 77.8 21 50.0 28 41.8 27 48.2
contract for a specified period 1 5.6 13 31.0 18 26.9 21 37.5
contract of mandate/specific work 3 16.7 8 19.0 21 31.3 8 14.3
In total 18 100.0 42 100.0 67 100.0 56 100.0
Over 10 years 3 16.7 5 11.1 2 2.8 4 6.8
In total 18 100.0 45 100.0 72 100.0 59 100.0
Notes: n - number of persons; % - the percentage of the group

Among the people from cluster No. 1, there were Cluster / Group No. 1 - the people who assessed
a higher percentage of people with long work experi- that the various factors have little effect on their job
ence than in the other clusters, while in clusters No. contentment. Generally in this group:
2, 3 and 4 most people had work experience of less - there were more women than men.
than 5 years. - most people were aged 20-29, but at a lower per-
In addition, there was a  statistically significant centage than in the other groups.
relationship between belonging to one of the four - there was highest percentage of workers that had
separate clusters and form of employment, 2 (6) = been employed for over 5 years compared to the
13.33, p <0.05. Table 11 presents the frequency dis- other clusters.
tribution for the form of employment of the respon- - there was the highest percentage of manual workers.
dents according to their particular clusters.c - there was a  higher percentage of people working
Among the people from cluster 1, there was a higher under a contract of indefinite duration than in the
percentage of people working under a contract of in- other groups.
definite duration than in the other clusters. Generally, Cluster / group 2 - the people who assessed that most
most of the respondents in all of the clusters were em- of the factors have little impact on their job content-
ployed for an indefinite period of time. ment. The exceptions were communication between
In conclusion, we can say that the people tested the employees and other groups, good relationships
in particular clusters and groups are characterized with colleagues and working atmosphere. Generally
as follows: in this group:

CONTEMPORARY ECONOMICS DOI: 10.5709/ce.1897-9254.131


Evaluation of Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction 67

- the number of men and women was similar. Smith, Kendall, Hulin & Miller, 1964, pp.313-319;
- most people were aged 20-29. Zalewska, 2001, pp. 197-218). For each of these cat-
- there was approximately the same number of man- egories there are included a variety of factors that are
ual and administrative workers as well as people then evaluated by the staff in terms of their satisfaction
working in specialist positions. or dissatisfaction. Thus, the overall level of job satis-
- most people in this group were employed for less faction consist of many sub-factors. Many researchers,
than 5 years. especially managers, wonder which individual factors
- most people worked under a contract of indefinite have an impact on job satisfaction. Companies take
duration. action to identify these factors so that they can make
The third cluster / group of the respondents were workers work willingly for the benefit and success of
formed by people who showed that all of the ana- the organization. Generally it can be said that satisfac-
lyzed factors had a strong influence on their level of tion is seen as a multidimensional attitude.
job contentment. The most important factors were The study, conducted and presented in this arti-
communication with management, the recognition cle, was to identify the factors affecting job satisfaction.
of superiors, good relations with superiors, good It should be noted that the survey was completed by
relationships with colleagues and working atmo- people who worked in different organizations and who
sphere. Generally in this group: were chosen in a random manner.
- there were more women than men. The analysis shows that in the opinions of 215 re-
- most people were aged 20-29. spondents, the factor with the greatest impact on job
- most people worked in specialist and administra- satisfaction was the atmosphere at work, and the fac-
tive positions. tor with the least impact - the culture of the company.
- most people were employed for less than 5 years. It turned out that by grouping factors and examining
- most people worked under a contract of indefinite them in different categories, the most important fac-
duration. tors are associated with interpersonal relations and
The fourth cluster / group were the people who eval- economic aspects of work, but just comparing between
uated that the most important factors for job con- factors, employment stability was rated as the most im-
tentment were job stability, opportunity for promo- portant. Thus, according to the respondents, the factor
tion, development opportunities and work content. having the second greatest impact on job satisfaction
Generally in this group: is job stability.
- there were more women than men. The author of the study classified the following fac-
- most people were aged 20-29. tors as those associated with interpersonal relations:
- most people worked in specialist and administra- good relations with colleagues, good relations with
tive positions. superiors, communication management, communica-
- most people were employed for less than 5 years. tion with other groups and the recognition of superi-
- most people worked under a contract of indefinite ors. Surprising is the fact that the economic aspects
duration. of work, in addition to stability of employment, were
indicated as having a lower impact on job satisfaction.
Summary One may wonder why, according to the respondents,
In the literature, job satisfaction is identified with the possibility of promotion or development has little
a positive attitude to the work performed, to cowork- impact on the overall assessment of job satisfaction.
ers and the entire organization. We may also assume Perhaps the positive emotions that accompany inter-
that a satisfied employee builds and participates in the personal relationships play greater significance and
success of any organization. According to experts, job satisfied people build positive relationships.
satisfaction is considered in many categories. Listed, The individual factors that may include the follow-
among others, are: economic aspects of work, inter- ing categories of activities and tasks in the evaluation
personal relationships, activities and tasks, and work- of the respondents also have less impact on job satis-
ing conditions (Herzberg, 1965, pp. 364-376; Locke, faction. Independence in decision making and con-

www.ce.vizja.pl Vizja Press&IT


68 Vol.8 Issue 1 2014 57-72 Barbara A. Sypniewska

tent of the work no longer play as significant a  role attributed to factors influencing job contentment
as factors relating to interpersonal relationships. On changes (Harris & Locke, 1974, pp.. 369-370).
the other hand, the category concerning working In addition, the respondents in group 1 indicated
conditions, specified in the study as safety at work, the factor with the least impact on their job satisfac-
has little but greater impact than the possibility of de- tion as the atmosphere at work and the factors with the
velopment or content of the work. This result is not biggest impacts as job stability, recognition of superi-
surprising, because currently, employees pay atten- ors and independence in decision making. However,
tion to the environment in which they work but do it should be emphasized that the results of the assess-
not assign it much importance. ment of individual factors are well below the average
It is surprising that the least important factor af- and are rated the lowest compared to the other groups.
fecting job satisfaction is company culture. It seems Another group the results which are below the aver-
that this factor should play greater significance as it age, but higher than in the group 1, are those of group
is the culture of the organization that sets the direc- 2. The respondents of group 2 assessed that most of
tion for the various benefits of a  company and its the factors have little impact on their job contentment.
prevailing rules. The exceptions are the communication between the
An interesting research procedure was to divide the employees and other groups, good relationships with
respondents into several groups. In this way, it was colleagues and working atmosphere and the indepen-
possible to learn which factors are specific to particu- dence in decision-making.
lar groups of respondents. It also allows you to specify Thus, who are the members of group 2? Well, they
how to all the respondents are characterized. Analyz- are similar in number of men and women, aged 20-
ing Figure 2, it can be seen that we have people who 29, about equally likely to be manual workers, admin-
rated all the factors highly and for whom everything is istrative workers, or workers in specialist positions,
important, those who begin to fluctuate in relation to employed on a  permanent contract and have lengths
certain factors and those who believe that the various of service of less than 5 years. In general, they are
factors have no impact on their job satisfaction. We people dissatisfied with their work. In their opinion,
have, therefore, people more or less involved in work. the factors with the least impact on their job satisfac-
People more involved note that various factors play tion are the recognition of superiors, work safety, good
a greater significance in their level of job contentment. relations with superiors, company culture and the
Two groups (clusters) of the respondents (group possibility of promotion. It seems that, similar to the
1 and 2) are generally dissatisfied with their work. In people in group 1, they are people who are isolated,
their opinions, the factors they were asked about in the little involved in their work and professionally burnt
survey have no effect on their overall job satisfaction. out. As the supreme factor influencing job satisfac-
They valued these factors lower than others. The most tion, respondents indicated communication between
dissatisfied group is the first one. Perhaps these are employees and maintaining good relationships with
people who are professionally burnt out or who have colleagues. This may also be an aspect of compensat-
lost their commitment to work and they only come to ing their unwillingness to work. Perhaps focusing on
work because they have to. interpersonal relationships gives the people in group 2
What is, then, group 1? The majority are women, a separate channel where their negative emotions have
aged 20-29, employed in manual positions, employed an outlet. It is also not surprising that the atmosphere
for an indefinite period and have bigger experience. at work has a big impact on their job satisfaction. Thus,
Another study conducted by the author on job satis- people of group 2 are mainly focused on interpersonal
faction showed that it was blue collar workers who are relationships and have a low involvement in their jobs
the most dissatisfied with their work and that wages and their dissatisfaction compensated by building rela-
are the most important factor for their job satisfaction. tionships with colleagues and the atmosphere at work.
Other factors no longer had great significance. The The group that indicated more factors as having
study also confirmed Herzberg’s theory that depend- a positive impact on job satisfaction than the aver-
ing on the work performed or position held, the weight age is group 4. Based on the analyses, this group

CONTEMPORARY ECONOMICS DOI: 10.5709/ce.1897-9254.131


Evaluation of Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction 69

consists mostly of women, people aged 20-29, work- the highest impact on job satisfaction while there was
ers in specialist and administrative positions, em- a steep decline in the value of this factor in group 3.
ployees who have work experience for less than 5 It is not hard to see that in the general characteristics
years and workers who are employed under a  con- of the staff profiles, groups 3 and 4 do not differ from
tract of indefinite duration. each other in terms of gender, age, length of service,
People in group 4 assessed that the factors with length of employment and type of employment con-
the highest importance for job contentment were job tract. So, what are the differences between group 3 and
stability, opportunity for promotion, development op- 4? It seems that the groups focus on different categories
portunities and work content while factors with the of factors affecting job satisfaction. Group 4 was focused
lowest importance were communication between the on the factors of economic categories and aspects of
employees and other groups, good relationships with activities and tasks, while group 3 focused mainly on
colleagues and working atmosphere. As seen, this is in factors in the category of interpersonal relationships. It
complete contrast to group 2, for which the most im- can therefore be concluded that the internal control unit
portant factors are those classified under interpersonal theme plays a huge role. People may have the same staff
relationships. For group four, the most important fac- profile but will differ in terms of the impact of various
tors are included in the category of economic aspects factors on job contentment. For some, the priority is to
of the business and partly included in the categories satisfy the first need of belonging and interpersonal re-
of activities and tasks, i.e., content of work, stability of lationships in the workplace while for others, the most
employment, development and promotion opportuni- important themes are related to the economic aspects of
ties. Other factors were rated above average but lower the work, its content and the possibility of development
than those previously mentioned. and promotion. For the latter group of people, inter-
The last group of the respondents is group 3. personal relationships or working atmosphere does not
These are the people who value all the factors af- play a significant role in job contentment.
fecting job satisfaction above average. So who are The aim of the study was to identify and assess the
these people? They are mostly women, aged 20-29, significance of individual factors influencing satisfac-
working in specialist and administrative positions, tion and dissatisfaction with work and demonstrate
have been employed for less than 5 years and are their impact on the overall assessment of job satisfac-
employed under a  contract of indefinite duration. tion. The study showed that between the weight attrib-
Analyzing the above characteristics, it is not diffi- uted to individual factors and overall job satisfaction,
cult to see that this group has the same profile as the there are many statistically significant correlations
respondents in group 4. referring mainly to selected on the basis of analysis
Generally people in group 3 showed that all of the respondents’ groups.
analyzed factors have a  strong influence on their job In the overall assessment of all 215 respondents, the
satisfaction. The most important factors were commu- atmosphere of work, job stability, good relations with
nication with the management, the recognition of su- colleagues and superiors are identified as factors that are
periors, good relations with superiors, good relation- of paramount importance. However, when analyzing
ships with colleagues and working atmosphere. these factors when respondents are distributed across
Slightly less valued in group 3, but still above av- clusters / groups we do not obtain the same results.
erage, were communication between employees and The study allows us to confirm the thesis in question
other groups, corporate culture and safety at work. concerning the validity of research on factors affect-
The factors that were rated the lowest were stability of ing job satisfaction. Undoubtedly, it is important to be
employment, job content and autonomy in decision able to determine how to keep good employees, how
making. In contrast, the possibility of promotion and to increase their satisfaction and motivation to work
development was evaluated similarly as the respon- and what to do to increase their commitment, devo-
dents of group 4, but less noticeable is their evaluation tion and loyalty. Thus, managers should be aware of
compared to the group 4. Group 4 was characterized the importance of job satisfaction of their employees
by valuing the content their work as the factor with as a  determinant of building the right relationships

www.ce.vizja.pl Vizja Press&IT


70 Vol.8 Issue 1 2014 57-72 Barbara A. Sypniewska

thus increasing the performance of both the individual Griffin, R. (1998). Podstawy zarządzania organizacja-
and the overall organization (Holland, Pyman, Cooper mi [Basics of managing organizations]. Warszawa:
& Teicher, 2011, pp. 95-111). Thanks to many previ- PWN.
ously conducted studies, companies recognize the im- Harris, T. C., Locke, E. A. (1974). Replication of white-
portance of this issue. A satisfied employee builds and collar-blue-collar differences in sources of sat-
participates in the success of any organization. isfaction and dissatisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 59 (3), 369-370.
Herzberg, F. (1965). The new industrial psychology. In-
Bibliography dustrial and Labor Relations Review, 18 (3), 364-376.
Ariani, D. W. (2012). Leader-Member Exchanges as Hoffman, E. (2003). Ocena psychologiczna pra-
a  Mediator of the Effect of Job Satisfaction on Af- cowników [Psychological evaluation of employ-
fective Organizational Commitment: An Empirical ees]. Gdańsk: GWP.
Test. International Journal of Management, 29 (1), Holland, P., Pyman, A., Cooper, B. K., & Teicher, J.
46-56. (2011). Employee Voice and Job Satisfaction In
Armstrong, M. (2000). Zarządzanie Zasobami Ludz- Australia: The Centrality of Direct Coice. Human
kimi [Human Resource Management]. Cracow: Resource Management, 50 (1), 95-111.
Oficyna Ekonomiczna. Isen, A. (2005). Pozytywny afekt i podejmowanie decyzji
Armstrong, M. (2004). Zarządzanie Zasobami Ludz- [Positive affect and decision making]. In M. Lewis,
kimi [Human Resource Management]. Cracow: J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Psychologia emocji [Psy-
Oficyna Ekonomiczna. chology of emotions]. (pp. 527-549). Gdańsk: GWP.
Armstrong, M. (2005). Zarządzanie Zasobami Ludz- Jachnis, A. (2008). Psychologia organizacji: kluczowe
kimi [Human Resource Management. Cracow]: zagadnienia [Psychology of organizations: key is-
Oficyna Ekonomiczna. sues]. Warszawa: Difin.
Argyle, M. (2004). Psychologia szczęścia [Psychology of Jorfi, H., Fauzy Bin Yacco, H., Md Ishah, I. (2012). Role
happiness]. Wrocław: Astrum. of Gender In Emotional Intelligence: Relationship
Bańka, A. (2002). Psychologia organizacji [Psychology among Emotional Intelligence, Communication
of the organization]. In J. Strelau (Ed.), Psycholo- Effectiveness and Job Satisfaction. International
gia. Podręcznik Akademicki [Psychology. Academ- Journal of Management, 29 (4), 590-597.
ic Handbook]. (Vol. 3) (pp. 321-350). Gdańsk: Locke, E. A., Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., Hulin, C. L.,
GWP. Miller, A. M. (1964). Convergent and discriminant
Bojewska, B. (2006). Zależności pomiędzy validity for areas and methods of rating job satisfac-
kulturą organizacyjną a  strategią personalną tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48 (5), 313-319.
przedsiębiorstwa [Relationships between or- Maslach, C. (2000). Wypalenie w  perspektywie
ganizational culture and strategy of the com- wielowymiarowej [Burnout - a multidimensional
pany personnel]. In H. Król (ed.), Ewolucja perspective]. In H. Sęk (Ed.), Wypalenie zawodowe
zarządzania organizacjami na przełomie wieków nauczycieli. Przyczyny mechanizmy zapobieganie
[The evolution of management organizations at [Professional burnout. The causes, mechanisms,
the turn of the century]. (pp. 481-495). Warsza- prevention] (pp. 13-31). Warszawa: PWN.
wa: Vizja Press. Mrzygłód, J. (2004). Badanie satysfakcji pracowników
Brief, A. P., Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational be- [Employee satisfaction survey]. In T. Rostkowski
havior: Affect in the work-place. Annual Review of (Ed.), Nowoczesne zarządzanie zasobami ludzkimi
Psychology, 53, 279-307. [Modern human resources management] (pp.
Fein, M. (1970). Approaches to Motivation, Hillsdale, 183-196). Warszawa: Difin.
NJ: Hillsdale Press. Ogińska-Bulik, N. (2006). Stres zawodowy w zawodach
Furnham, A. (2008). Personalisty and intelligence at usług społecznych [Professional stress in social ser-
work. Exploring and explaining individual differ- vices occupations: sources, consequences, preven-
ences at work. New York: Routledge. tion]. Warszawa: Difin.

CONTEMPORARY ECONOMICS DOI: 10.5709/ce.1897-9254.131


Evaluation of Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction 71

Pocztowski, A. (2003). Zarządzanie zasobami ludzkimi


[Human Resource Management]. Warszawa: PWE.
Makin, P., Cooper, G., Cox, C. (2000). Organizacje
a  kontrakt psychologiczny. Zarządzanie ludźmi
w organizacji [Organizations and the psychologi-
cal contract. Managing people in the organiza-
tion]. Warszawa: PWN.
Pratt, M. G., Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering mean-
ingfulness in working and at work. In K. S. Cam-
eron, J. E. Dutton, R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive
organizational scholarship: foundations of a  new
discipline, (pp. 309-327). San Francisco, CA: Ber-
rett-Koehlers.
Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, J. A., Shanock, L., Scott, C. W.,
Shuffler, M. (2010). Employee Satisfaction with
meetings: A contemporary Facet of Job satisfaction,
Human Resource Management, 49 (2), 149-172.
Sarmiento, T. P., Laschinger, H. K., Iwasiw, C. (2004).
Nurse educators’ work-place empowerment,
burnout, and job satisfaction: Testing Kanter’s the-
ory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 46 (2), 134-143.
Sęk, H. (2000). Wypalenie zawodowe u  nauczycieli:
uwarunkowania i możliwości zapobiegania [Burn-
out of teachers: Conditions and possibilities for
prevention]. In H. Sęk (Ed.), Wypalenie zawodowe
nauczycieli. Przyczyny mechanizmy zapobieganie
[Professional burnout. The causes, mechanisms,
prevention] (pp. 149-167). Warszawa: PWN.
Stride, C., Wall, T. D., Catley, N. (2007). Measures of job
satisfactions, organizational commitment, mental
health and job-related well-being: A bench-marking
manual (2nd ed.). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley
and Sons.
Wang, Y., Yang, C., Wang, K. (2012). Comparing Pub-
lic and Private Employees’ Job Satisfaction and
Turnover. Public Personnel Management, 41 (3),
557-573.
Zalewska, A. (2001). “Sheet of job description” O.
Neuberger and M. Allerbeck-adaptation to Polish
conditions. Psychological Studies, 39 (1), 197-218.
Zalewska, A. (2003). Dwa światy. Emocjonalne i poznaw-
cze oceny jakości życia i ich uwarunkowania u osób
o wysokiej i niskiej reaktywności [Two worlds. Emo-
tional and cognitive assessment of quality of life
and their causes in subjects with high and low reac-
tivity]. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo SWPS.

www.ce.vizja.pl Vizja Press&IT


72 Vol.8 Issue 1 2014 57-72 Barbara A. Sypniewska

CONTEMPORARY ECONOMICS DOI: 10.5709/ce.1897-9254.131